I am Jason Shvili and this is my blog. I was born and raised in Canada and still live in the Great White North, but I also have roots in Israel and am extremely proud of my Israeli identity and heritage.
Whether you agree or disagree with what I have to say, please don't hesitate to post comments and tell me what you think. I look forward to hearing from all of you.

Tuesday, 24 March 2015

Towards the end of the election campaign, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that a Palestinian state would not be established while he was Prime Minister. After winning the election, however, Netanyahu said that he was still committed to the two-state solution. So the question is, does the Israeli Prime Minister believe in a two-state solution or not? I can't read Bibi's mind, but something tells me that he would prefer that the two-state solution not be allowed to happen. My guess is that he accepts the two-state solution in theory, but not in practice, because he knows that the Palestinians will never agree to the conditions that every Israeli government, both left wing and right wing, has always insisted upon: demilitarization, security arrangements to protect Israel's borders, the negation of the Palestinians' so-called "Right of Return" that would compromise Jewish independence, and so forth. If this is the case, then I think we should all assume that as long as Netanyahu is the Prime Minister of Israel, there will be no Palestinian state. Okay, so if a Palestinian state is not in the offing, what should we expect as Netanyahu begins a new mandate?

I would say that the future looks pretty bleak. Recently, for example, the IDF has warned that continuing to freeze funds destined for the Palestinian Authority could lead to more violence (see: IDF Warns: Freeze in Palestinian Funds Could Fuel West Bank Unrest). The fact of the matter is that if Palestinians don't see an improvement in their lives soon, they're going to get a lot nastier than the already are. But of course, if there's no two-state solution in site, what hope do Palestinians have of a better life? Moreover, what hope to Israelis have that they won't have to continue putting up with Palestinian terrorism? These questions need answers, but so far, Prime Minister Netanyahu isn't providing any, and this has to change. Okay, so Bibi doesn't want a Palestinian state. On this, I agree with him, but at the same time, if he's not going to accept the solution put forth by the international community, as bad as it may be, then he needs to provide an alternative.

So what alternative is there? Actually, there have always been alternative solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict proposed by various sources. Even I put out my own idea for an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement (see: My Own Personal Israeli-Palestinian Peace Plan). The problem is that I don't see Israel and the Palestinians agreeing to anything substantial in the near future. Hence, the best we can hope for is temporary measures - measures that will not resolve the conflict, but will at least make it more bearable for both sides. One idea, espoused by Naftali Bennett, the leader of the Beit Yehudi (Jewish Home) party involves annexing the territory in Area C, a term dating back to the 1993 Oslo Accords, which refers to territory in Judea and Samaria, aka the West Bank, that is under full Israeli control. Bennett has proposed giving full Israeli citizenship to Palestinians residing in this territory and allowing them the same freedom of movement that other Israelis have. I like this idea because it would dramatically improve the lives of many Palestinians. They would have much better economic prospects without the bother of checkpoints and other military restrictions. I would tweak Bennett's proposal a bit, however, so that we do not formally annex Area C, but simply apply Israeli law to the territory. I would also argue against giving the Palestinians in Area C full Israeli citizenship. After all, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan already gave all the Palestinians in the so-called West Bank citizenship, so why should Israel have to? As far as I'm concerned, the Hashemites dug the hole for themselves, so let them live in it!

Overall, I would say that if anything is to be done to make the Israeli-Palestinian conflict more manageable, Israel is going to have to take unilateral actions. Yes, that's right, unilateral. I know that this is a bad word amongst the leaders of the international community, especially Neville Chamberlain wannabes like U.S. President Barack Obama, but the reality is that unless Israel takes action by itself, nothing on the ground will change.

Wednesday, 18 March 2015

Local and international media were against him; leaders throughout the international community were against him; even the president of Israel's greatest ally, the United States, was against him. But despite all the opposition to him and everything he stands for, Benjamin Netanyahu came out on top. It was essentially Bibi versus the world, and Bibi won. In fact, he won more easily than anyone anticipated. Most thought that if Netanyahu did win, he would do so by only a seat or two against his main rivals in the Zionist Camp, led by Isaac Herzog and Tzipi Livni. But the newly re-elected Israeli Prime Minister surprised everyone, including myself, by receiving a six seat margin of victory. Personally, I couldn't be happier, not just because Netanyahu is the best person to lead Israel, but also because his victory represents a big middle finger being waved in the face of his opponents, including U.S. President and Neville Chamberlain wannabe, Barack Obama.

Obama wanted nothing more than to see Bibi defeated and for a new government led by the bleeding heart lefties of the Zionist Camp to come to power in Israel. Sorry, Obama, but you bet on the wrong horse. Too bad you're such a poor sport, too, otherwise you would be congratulating Bibi yourself instead of having your sidekick, John Kerry, do it for you. Now of course, Obama wasn't the only world leader who wanted to see Netanyahu fall, which is why many other world leaders haven't congratulated the Israeli Prime Minister on his election victory either. As far as I'm concerned, they can all go to hell. The only thing that matters is what Israelis want, and clearly Israelis want Bibi to remain prime minister because they know that he will never compromise their security.

Netanyahu must now work on forming a new government; a government that will not curtail his efforts to defend Israel's interests in the international community; a government that will tackle Israel's socioeconomic problems, such as the housing crisis, which Bibi mentioned in his victory speech. Indeed, I would say that the greatest threat to his reelection was the public perception that he was ignoring the country's socioeconomic issues. Thankfully, Israeli voters looked past this perception and chose to keep him in office. This doesn't mean, however, that Israelis have forgotten about things like housing shortages and the high cost of living. These issues will be right back on the agenda as soon as Israel recovers from election fever, so I think that Netanyahu would be wise to form a government that will tackle the country's socioeconomic problems, because if Israelis do not see an improvement to their standard of living soon, they may not give Bibi another chance next time.

Monday, 16 March 2015

The last post I wrote was about multiculturalism and how it is out of control in Canada because a lot of people think it means that we must tolerate all cultural practices regardless of whether or not they run counter to our democratic values. I warned that in the future, proponents of multiculturalism may use the ideology as an excuse to tolerate uncivilized practices like polygamy and female genital mutilation. But there's something else for which multiculturalism has become an excuse: the failure of newcomers to integrate into Canadian society.

Back in the 1990s, I used to work on a construction site in Markham, a suburb of Toronto. One day, I went along with a handyman to do a service call in one of the new houses that had been built on the site. The occupant that met us there was a young Chinese man. I remember I had some issues communicating with him because he said he spoke very poor English. Now of course, when someone is new to the country, like many of the folks living in the new houses on my site were, he or she cannot be expected to speak fluent English right away. The problem was that this particular person was not new to the country. In fact, he had lived here for ten years. TEN YEARS! Can someone please tell me why someone who has lived in Canada for ten years can barely speak English? There could be a legitimate explanation. Maybe the person had a learning disability or something like that. I don't know about this particular person, but I mention him as an example because I hear all too often about people living in Canada for years and not making a concerted effort to learn our official languages. And what upsets me more is that there are people out there that will use multiculturalism as an excuse to apologize for these people and imply that they don't need to learn Canada's official languages because Canada is a multicultural country. In fact, if you complain about people not being able to speak one of our official languages, you will likely be labelled by multicultists as a racist.

I'm sorry, but insisting that newcomers to this country learn our official languages does not make me or anyone else a racist. In fact, I don't know any country on Earth in which a person coming to live there would not be expected to learn the local language. So unless an immigrant to this country has a learning disability or some other legitimate impediment to learning Canada's official languages, he or she has no excuse not to learn them. But of course, integration is not just about learning the local language.

Being part of a society also means accepting society's values. In Canada, we value principles like democracy, gender equality, and the rule of law, so it is important that newcomers to this country be prepared to accept and uphold such principles. The problem is that many immigrants to Canada come from places that do not espouse Canada's values. This doesn't mean, of course, that they will automatically reject our values. Some will and some will not. For those newcomers who do respect and uphold our values, we should welcome them with open arms. But as for those who refuse to accept and abide by our values, they should immediately be shown the door and multiculturalism be damned.

Saturday, 14 March 2015

Nearly five decades ago, Pierre Elliott Trudeau became Prime Minister of Canada. During his tenure in office, his ideas were to change the face of the country. Amongst those ideas: Multiculturalism. A new national ideology that the late Prime Minister created in order to make Canada a more inclusive society. Trudeau spent the better part of his time in office trying to drill the theme of multiculturalism into the minds of Canadians. He also sought to change facts on the ground, opening Canada's borders to immigrants from around the world and ending Canada's long tradition of sometimes relentless and humiliating discrimination against non-European newcomers. Fast forward to today and Canada is now a cultural mosaic unlike any other. And even fifteen years after Trudeau's death, his idea of multiculturalism is still effectively the country's national ideology. In my humble opinion, Trudeau's success in imprinting multiculturalism on Canada was the greatest feat of social engineering in this country's history. I fear, however, that multiculturalism may ultimately destroy Canada because it has simply gone too far.

What I mean by this is that the original multiculturalist ideology that Trudeau envisioned is being interpreted by a growing multitude of Canadians as a carte blanche to tolerate and accept cultural traditions that run counter to Canada's fundamental democratic values. Trudeau's greatest mistake when he conjured up the idea of multiculturalism and sought to impose it on Canada was not setting limits. What limits am I referring to? Basically, the kind where we do not sanction cultural practices that contravene those of a democratic society. For example, a lot of folks are now talking about current Prime Minister Stephen Harper's comments about the niqab, the face veil worn by some Muslim women. He has been criticized for saying that the niqab itself is rooted in a culture that is fundamentally anti-women. My feeling is that the people who are condemning the Prime Minister for his remarks and slamming his government for trying to make women who wear niqabs remove them when swearing the oath of citizenship are people who believe that multiculturalism should have no limits.

I personally believe that multiculturalism should and MUST have limits, particularly in regards to Canada's fundamental democratic values. In other words, we need to draw a line in the sand whenever our democratic values are under threat. So I agree with Prime Minister Harper's assertion that the niqab is rooted in a culture that is anti-women and I believe that although we shouldn't ban it, as has been done in some European jurisdictions, we should insist that a person wearing it remove it while taking the oath of citizenship, testifying in court, voting or any other instance where a person is normally required to identify him or herself in a free and democratic society.

If we continue down the slippery slope of unhindered multiculturalism, we run the risk of losing our democratic values. Before you know it, the multicultists will insist that Canada tolerate things like polygamy or female genital mutilation, which are two other traditional practices rooted in a culture that is fundamentally anti-women. Where will it end? If anything, Prime Minister Harper is just trying to bring some sanity to the whole multiculturalism debate. He's trying to do what his late predecessor, Pierre Trudeau, failed to do: set limits to the ideology of multiculturalism so that it does not put Canada's democratic values in jeopardy. I just hope that Harper stays the course and does not give in to pressure from the folks who want to push multiculturalism to the point where our democratic principles are eroded and Canada is no longer Canada.

Friday, 13 March 2015

Canadian TV viewers have won a small victory against the likes of Friends of Canadian Broadcasting and other control freaks who seek to shove Canadian content (cancon for short) down our throats. The Canadian Radio Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has announced that it is easing some of the communistic Canadian content restrictions imposed on broadcasters in this country. Now, TV broadcasters will not be forced to carry any Canadian content during daytime viewing hours. The regulator has also said no to the cancon heads' push to make internet broadcast services like Netflix pay for Canadian programming, which would have raised prices for Canadian subscribers since Netflix and similar services would almost certainly pass on the cost of paying for Canadian programming to the consumer. But I'm not about crack open a bottle of champagne just yet.

The CRTC is still making broadcasters in this country carry 50% Canadian content during prime time viewing hours. In other words, we're still going to be stuck with a lot of mediocre cancon during the times that most of us are watching TV. And I'm sorry, but the fact of the matter is that there just isn't enough good Canadian content, no matter what your taste, so yes, much of what you will continue to see during prime time will be mediocre. So although Canadian TV viewers have chalked up a victory against Friends of Canadian Broadcasting and the like, it is a small victory. Canadians will only have total freedom to choose what they want to watch when ALL Canadian content restrictions are lifted.

We also need to the CRTC to give us the freedom to choose what channels to pay for and what not to. Up until now, cable and satellite providers have been screwing us by bundling channels so that we need to pay for channels we don't want to get the ones we want. The CRTC will also still enforce their mandatory carriage policy, which forces cable and satellite providers to carry certain channels, and will still make these providers fork over part of their revenue to pay for Canadian programming. These are all practices that cost Canadian TV viewers tons of money every year, which is why they need to end and end now!

Friends of Canadian Broadcasting? More Like Enemies of Canadian Consumers

The recent decision to ease Canadian content restrictions for broadcasters will surely raise the ire of special interest groups, like Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, since their agenda is to shove as much Canadian content down our throats as possible, and to make us pay for it whether we like it or not. Now of course, I understand that they're trying to protect the jobs of Canadian TV and film producers. The problem is that although they may be friends of Canadian broadcasting, they are enemies of Canadian consumers. In other words, they don't give a damn about what we the Canadian TV viewers want. They want more Canadian content restrictions and less choice for Canadian consumers. And if that's not bad enough, they want to use our tax dollars to subsidize themselves. Well folks, the fact of the matter is that these people have been subsidizing themselves with our money for years and I for one am sick of it! It's time for us to tell the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting and the rest of their ilk to keep their mooching hands off our money and our TV screens.

Tuesday, 10 March 2015

Security has always been the paramount issue in Israeli politics simply because so many people want to wipe the country off the map. No other country in the world faces an existential threat like Israel does. Netanyahu knows this. He also knows Israelis trust him to manage the country's security than any other leader running in the current election campaign. But what Netanyahu has not seemed to grasp is that security isn't the only issue in this election. Indeed, socioeconomic issues have become just as important, if not more so. Why? Well, because over the years, it's become more and more difficult for average Israelis to feed, clothe and house themselves. Netanyahu is well aware of the skyrocketing cost of living in Israel, but he has so far failed to adequately address it, which makes me worry that he may lose the election, not because he lacks the credibility to deal with Israel's security threats, but because he has failed to show Israelis that he cares about their socioeconomic well-being.

Back in July last year, I wrote a post about Israel's deteriorating socioeconomic situation, entitled Israel's Other Security Problem, in which I pointed out that Israel has the highest poverty rate in the developed world according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). So why is there so much poverty in Israel? The simple answer consists of three words: cost of living. Over the years, despite rapid economic growth, the cost of everything that Israelis need to live has skyrocketed, but Israelis' wages have not kept up. And there is one particular living expense that has grabbed more headlines in Israel than any other socioeconomic issue: the cost of housing.

It is now unaffordable for many if not most Israelis to buy a home. The situation is not much better for renters either, as rents throughout the country have increased significantly along with the purchase price of homes. A recent report about the housing situation in Israel concluded that Netanyahu did little to address the issue (see: State Comptroller: Housing Crisis Spiraled and Netanyahu did Little). Adding to Israelis' housing woes is the rising cost of feeding their families and the deterioration of the country's health and education systems, all of which have been in the news during the current election campaign. Clearly, the Prime Minister needs to demonstrate to the Israeli voters that he can do better, otherwise he may find himself out of office.

Monday, 9 March 2015

With the elections in Israel just a week away, I am reminded of the shameful fact that my father, who was born and raised in Israel, cannot vote in the upcoming elections unless he is willing to hop a plane back to the old country so that he can cast a ballot on election day. I have always believed it to be unfair that Israelis who have lived and worked in the country, paid Israeli taxes, and most importantly have done military service don't get the chance to vote in national elections unless they are willing to make the long trip back home just to vote.

As I said, my father was born and raised in Israel. He went to school in Israel, he worked in Israel, he paid taxes in Israel, and like every good Israeli patriot, he did his compulsory military service as well as reserve service. Heck, he fought three wars for his country and to this day has shrapnel in his hand from the 1973 war, yet his country doesn't even have the decency to allow him to vote to choose the nation's leaders while living abroad. And what's even dumber? The fact that if I were willing to hop on a plane to Israel for election day, I would be able to cast a ballot because I have inherited Israeli citizenship from my father. This despite the fact that I have never lived or worked in the country for an extended period of time, nor have I done military service. Does this sound stupid to anyone else?

I sincerely hope that the next government Israelis vote into office has the decency to change this situation. For starters, allow Israelis living abroad to cast ballots at their nearest embassies or consulates, or even through the mail as is done in many other democratic countries including Canada, where I live. But don't allow just any person with Israeli citizenship to vote abroad, because that would mean extending voting privileges to people like myself who have never lived or worked in Israel or paid Israeli taxes. Instead, allow only those Israelis who have lived in the country for an extended amount of time, say five or more years, to cast ballots abroad. In any case, make it so that people like my father, who risked his life for his country, can exercise their right to vote without having to travel thousands of kilometers just to be there and cast a ballot on election day.

Right now, the most popular topic concerning education in Ontario is the new, recently released sex-ed curriculum. The curriculum came out to mixed reviews. Some are praising it because it deals with subjects like "sexting" and gender identity, which were not addressed in the old guidelines dating back to the 1990s, but others are condemning it for exposing children to sexual material at an age that some would argue is too young and for contravening the values held by some of the parents who have children in the public school system. Personally, I think the new curriculum has its pluses and minuses, but I'm not writing this post to discuss the new guidelines' merits and drawbacks. I'm writing it to discuss what I think is a much bigger topic that I think this whole sex-ed debate exemplifies: the lack of choice in how parents want to educate their children.

The most vocal opposition to the new sex-ed curriculum seems to be coming from more socially conservative groups and parents who do not want children, or at least their children, exposed to material that goes against their values. For example, there are still plenty of people in Ontario, many of whom have children in the public school system, who believe that homosexuality is morally wrong. I strongly disagree with these folks, but I'm not about to impose my opinion on them or their children. Unfortunately, however, the current provincial government seems adamant about imposing its views on children, regardless of what their parents think, and I believe that this wrong.

Now, just to be fair, parents in Ontario have long been given the right to pull their children out of lessons or school activities that they believe are wrong. The best example I can give of this is the accommodations routinely given to students who are Jehovah's Witnesses. These students are not required to stand for the national anthem or study evolution because doing either would contravene their religious beliefs and those of the parents who raise them. In the same respect, parents who do not want their children being exposed to the new sex-ed curriculum, or parts of it, will have the right to remove their children from those lessons. So there is no question of whether parents have the right to determine what their children are not exposed to in the public education system, because this right does indeed exist. What does not exist, however, is a parent's right to determine what their children ARE exposed to when they receive their education. Put more succinctly, parents do not have the right to choose the education that their children receive.

To this day, the right to educate your children as you see fit is something that only the privileged few have. By privileged few, I mean those parents who can afford to send their children to private schools that offer alternative and/or enriched educational experiences. As for the rest of you parents, sorry, but your choices are likely limited to your local public or Catholic school. Want your child to have an education in music? Too bad, your local school just can't afford it. What about if you want your kid to receive a religious education? Sorry, you're outta luck again, my friend (unless of course you're Catholic). Your kid's just gonna have to make do with whatever the government wants and can afford to teach him or her, and to hell with what you want for your child!

Wouldn't it be great if you got to send your kids to whatever kind of school you wanted, regardless of your financial standing? Sure it would, but don't hold your breath for it to happen, especially here in Ontario, because there's too much at stake for the powerful special interests to allow the provincial government to make it easier for parents to choose their child's education; too many union jobs to protect and too many values espoused by hardcore ideologues that would not be imposed on your children if you had the right to educate them as you please. Former provincial Progressive Conservative Party leader John Tory wanted to help parents who preferred alternatives to the public education system, and look where that got him. Oh wait, he eventually got to be the mayor of Toronto, so things turned out good for him in the end. Too bad I can't say the same thing about many parents who continue to have little choice in how their children are educated.

Saturday, 7 March 2015

If you use the TTC on a regular basis, or know someone who does, you're very familiar with the usual complaints about Toronto's public transit provider. The overcrowded buses, streetcars and subways, the frequent delays, the equipment breakdowns, the surly employees that would sooner step on your face than look at you, the increasing the lack of service in many areas, the...well, you get the idea. It seems that the TTC is always in the news for the wrong reasons. The most recent reason: cost overruns. It has been reported that the TTC's long-anticipated Spadina subway extension now has up to $400 million in cost overruns. Yikes! Four hundred million dollars!? Wait a minute, why am I so surprised? It's not like this hasn't happened before. Remember the St. Clair streetcar right-of-way disaster? I'm sure you do, especially if you happen to be one of those unfortunate souls who lost their business during the project's construction. As I remember, the whole thing was supposed to cost $60 million, but that eventually ballooned to more than $100 million. Now I understand that there are almost always unexpected costs that come with big projects, but this is just ridiculous, and Mayor John Tory, whom I supported in the last municipal election, agrees with me. So what's he going to do about it? Well, I hope he does something, because Torontonians deserve better. They deserve more accountability when it comes to how the TTC uses their tax dollars. Unfortunately, however, when it comes to the TTC, accountability is very hard to come by. And why should it be? The TTC doesn't face any competition, so there's little incentive to do better, and this I think is public transit's biggest problem.

For those of you who don't know, the TTC by law has a monopoly on public transit within the City of Toronto. That means that for many Torontonians, the TTC isn't "the better way", it's the only way, and I think this has to change. If Mayor John Tory really wants to fix the TTC, he should call for the immediate abolition of its monopoly on public mass transit in Toronto. If this were to happen, Torontonians would no longer be at the mercy of the TTC, because private interests could provide alternatives to the overcrowded and underfunded public system. Imagine, for example, not having to wait for the TTC to build a new subway route, because a private company has offered to build one at no cost to the taxpayers since it stands to make a substantial profit from it in the long run. Believe me, I would love for a private firm to come and build a subway down a busy street, like Bathurst or King, as I'm sure many other people would. And if you happen to live in a part of the city that is grossly under-served by the TTC, you can bet money that a private concern would come and fill in the gap left by the public transit provider, because they know that there's profit to be had.

Now I can already hear some of the naysayers telling me that this will never work because there won't be seamless movement between the TTC system and the systems owned by private interests. This is a load of nonsense, because the technology exists to provide seamless movement between two or more systems. Transit users will be able to transfer between a TTC-owned bus, streetcar or subway route to those owned by private interests as easily as someone driving on HWY 400 gets onto the privately-owned HWY 407. It's not rocket science. And the fact of the matter is that those who oppose allowing the private sector to provide alternative mass transportation to Torontonians aren't really concerned about the average commuter; they're concerned about protecting the jobs of unionized TTC workers, who are some of the same people who, as I said, would sooner step on a TTC user's face than look at them. The reality is that without competition, there will never be meaningful accountability at the TTC. I'm hoping that folks like the mayor and other elected officials at City Hall and the Province of Ontario will acknowledge this reality and work to remove the TTC's shackles from the city's public transit users so that they can finally choose what they believe is "the better way".

Tuesday, 3 March 2015

Today, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu delivered his much anticipated speech to a joint session of the U.S. Congress. The speech itself was controversial before Netanyahu even muttered a word, because he was not invited by President Obama, but by the leaders of the Republican-controlled Congress. All of Netanyahu's critics keep saying that his decision to accept the invitation by the Republican leadership was a slap in the face to the U.S. President, not to mention the speech itself. But I don't think the Israeli Prime Minister has anything to apologize for. In fact, I would say that the people who criticize him should instead be thanking him for trying to keep the world in touch with reality - a reality that many people, especially President Obama, don't see.

Anyone who has listened to or read Prime Minister Netanyahu's speeches knows that he likes to make references to history, and his speech today is no exception. For example, he compared the Islamic extremist regime of Iran to that of Nazi Germany, and I believe that this comparison is 100% legitimate, because Iran's ayatollahs are just as determined to inflict genocide as Hitler and the Nazis were. As Netanyahu mentioned, Iran's regime is not just a Jewish problem, nor was Nazi Germany just a Jewish problem. The fact is that Iran's Islamo-fascist rulers threaten to destroy more than just the State of Israel, just as Nazi Germany sought to destroy more than just the Jews. Netanyahu even noted that the Jews killed in the Holocaust were just a fraction of the tens of millions killed by the Nazis.

Speaking of historical analogies, I have noticed a marked increase in the number of times Netanyahu's critics have accused him of believing himself to be the modern day Winston Churchill, recalling that the late British leader tried to warn the world about the danger that Nazi Germany posed. I obviously can't read the Israeli Prime Minister's mind, but if he genuinely thinks that he's filling Churchill's shoes in today's world, I certainly wouldn't blame him for believing as such, because the fact of the matter is that he is the only world leader who has consistently warned about the dangers of appeasing Iran's ayatollahs, just as Churchill warned against appeasing Hitler. And if Netanyahu is indeed the modern day Winston Churchill, I would say that U.S. President Barack Obama is the modern day Neville Chamberlain. So it's no wonder, then, that Obama's critics are comparing him to the late British Prime Minister, who famously waived an agreement signed by himself and Hitler in the air, proclaiming "peace in our time."

Thankfully, Obama has not yet made any agreement with Iran, and hopefully he does not sign off on the deal currently taking shape - a deal that as the Israeli Prime Minister noted, would not prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, but would instead do just the opposite. After Netanyahu gave his speech, Obama accused him of not having any alternatives to the agreement that he was trying to cement with Iran. I guess he wasn't paying attention when the Israeli Prime Minister was speaking, because if he was, he would have heard the alternative - get a better deal!